In the Matter of: THE EBERLE FAMILY TRUST TWO (2). ROGER EBERLE v. SUSAN EBERLE, TRUSTEE OF THE EBERLE FAMILY TRUST
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 49
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Max N. Eberle created a revocable living trust (2007) and later irrevocable trusts; most assets were ultimately placed in "The Eberle Family Trust Two (2)". Susan was named sole lifetime beneficiary and trustee with broad discretion to manage, enter contracts, make distributions, and receive reasonable compensation.
- From 2011 until his death in 2012, Susan, Diane, Robert, Richard, Roger and others provided care and property maintenance for Max; several kept records and were paid from the Trust for services and expenses.
- After Max’s death, Susan filed a trust accounting and proposed distribution (July 2014) showing payments to family members and trustee fees (including $18,000 paid to herself). Roger and Stephen objected; Roger appealed the probate court’s Order approving the accounting and distribution.
- At an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Susan and her witnesses credible, concluded the Trust granted Susan authority to make the payments and compensate herself, and approved the accounting and distribution.
- Roger raised five points on appeal: statute-of-limitations and lack of authority for payments, presumption services were gratuitous, insufficient evidence for trustee fees, lack of authority for distributions, and denial of his attorney-fee request. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roger) | Defendant's Argument (Susan/Trustee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether payments to family members and trustee were time‑barred or required probate claims | Payments made to family and others were effectively "claims" and barred because not filed in probate under §473.444 | Trust distributions are governed by trust terms, not probate claims statute; payments were authorized by the Trust | Affirmed: statute for probate claims inapplicable; appellant failed to show how it applied |
| Whether services by family were presumed gratuitous and thus unpaid | Services should be presumed gratuitous absent formal claims or proof | Trustee presented evidence (contracts/ledgers/testimony) and Trust authorized entering contracts and paying assistants | Affirmed: appellant did not show applicable authority; trial court crediting testimony was proper |
| Whether trustee abused discretion or lacked authority to pay herself $18,000 fee | Trustee lacked authority or evidence to justify $18,000 trustee fee; no court approval | Trust expressly authorized reasonable compensation and additional fees; trustee had broad discretion and trust precluded need for judicial approval | Affirmed: Trust provisions allowed reasonable compensation; appellate record supported trial court credibility findings |
| Whether attorney’s fees should be awarded to objecting beneficiary | Roger sought attorney’s fees for actions benefitting the trust corpus | Court denied and appellant needed reversal of prior rulings to prevail on fees | Affirmed: because underlying points fail, attorney‑fee claim also fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for court‑tried cases)
- Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (framework for not‑supported‑by‑substantial‑evidence challenges)
- Falls Condominiums Owners’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Sandfort, 263 S.W.3d 675 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (appellate court will not perform research or advocate for appellant)
- Mael v. McEvoy, 451 S.W.3d 264 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (appellant must show interaction of law and facts)
- In re Estate of Van Note, 443 S.W.3d 32 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Ferrell v. Mercantile Trust Co., 490 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. App. 1973) (example of trusts that did not provide trustee compensation; contrasted with present trust)
- Morrison v. Asher, 361 S.W.2d 844 (Mo. App. 1962) (same)